Tag: Lebanon

World Communion Sunday at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church Celebrates Its Global Partners

October 1 was the Sunday for Minneapolis Westminster Presbyterian Church’s joyous celebration of World Communion Sunday and its global partnerships in Cuba, Cameroon and Palestine.[1]

The Calls to Worship

The three Calls to Worship were provided in their native languages by Joseph Mukete (a Westminster member from Cameroon), Reinerio Miguel Arce (a Cuban pastor involved with our Cuban partners and the General Secretary of the Presbyterian-Reformed Church in Cuba) and Rihab Fitzgerald (a Westminster member from Lebanon). Here are the English translations of those Calls:

  • “From the nations of Africa, we come to worship the God whose image we bear, and who created us to be one community, united in love.”
  • “From the islands of the Caribbean, we come to worship the God whose image we bear, and who created us to be one community, united in love.”
  • From the ancient land of Palestine, we come to worship the God whose image we bear, and who created us to be one community, united in love.”

The Call to Confession

 The following Call to Confession was provided by Westminster’s Rev. David Tsai Shinn, who is Taiwanese:

  • “Merciful God, in your gracious presence we confess our sin and the sin of this world. Although Christ is among us as our peace, we are a people divided against ourselves as we cling to the values of a broken world. The profit and pleasures we pursue lay waste the land and pollute the seas. The fears and jealousies that we harbor set neighbor against neighbor and nation against nation. We abuse your good gifts of imagination and freedom, of intellect and reason, and have turned them into bonds of oppression. Lord, have mercy upon us; heal and forgive us. Set us free to serve you in the world as agents of your reconciling love in Jesus Christ.”

The Holy Scripture

Matthew 28: 16-20: “Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Rev. Dr. Tim Hart-Andersen’s Sermon: “We Are the Church: Go forth into the world in peace” [2]

“As I enter my final month with you before retirement, I begin a five-part sermon series on the Charge and Benediction I have used to conclude worship every week that I have preached here. I learned it from my father, and always figured he thought it up, only to learn later in seminary that it’s actually from scripture – that’s even better.”

“I heard it every Sunday growing up. It starts like this: “Go forth into the world in peace”.

“That line echoes the scripture text from Matthew 28: ‘Go, therefore, into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.’”

“We call it the Great Commission, and that one sentence has had more definitional impact on how the church engages with the world than any other particular part of the Bible. It has had profound impact on the Church and the world. In the 19th century, Christian churches in North America and Europe heard the words of Matthew 28 as a compelling call to move out across the globe to bring the good news of Jesus Christ.’

“So we went. We taught the faith, started churches, set up schools, established hospitals, and spread the practice of Christianity. We also brought Western culture and ideas to those living in the global south and other areas of the world. It was the theological corollary to the doctrine of Manifest Destiny.”

“When Jesus says, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,’ many in the Church mistakenly heard that as ‘all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to us.’ We tended to assume that authority unto ourselves. Well-intentioned or not, the impact of this missionary zeal often caused abrupt, and even devastating change – the opposite of what the love of Jesus would have wanted.”

“Some American churches sent missionaries overseas; others focused on North America. The westward movement of white settlers in the 1800s brought the new nation into conflict with indigenous peoples living on the land. As we know from our history lessons, military conflict and violence accompanied the displacement of first nations. A different, lesser-known kind of violence followed, often with the church’s complicity.”

“The ‘educational’ institutions established by churches in collusion with the federal government were part of a 19th century systematic campaign of assimilation. The federal government aimed to take away Native culture, language, religion, practices, and traditions in order to Americanize and Christianize them. And they started with the kids; we started with the kids. Children.”

“The federal Commissioner for Indian Affairs said in 1886, ‘The government aid furnished (to churches) enables them to sustain their missions, and renders it possible…to lead these people, whose paganism has been the chief obstacle to their civilization, into the light of Christianity.’” (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/national/u-s-report-details-church-state-collusionon-indigenous-schools)

“Ben Sherman, who was taken as a child to Oglala Community School in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, remembers the pain. ‘The government was not done with war,” he said, “So the next phase involved war against the children’”

“At one point in the late 19th century, 85% of school-age indigenous children in this country were living at one of the nation’s 523 boarding schools. According to a report by the U.S. Department of the Interior, “thousands” of children likely died while at the schools. The cemeteries are now being uncovered. Half of those schools were operated by churches under a contract with the federal government, or run independently by religious groups, including Presbyterians. Some of them kept operating through much of the 20th century.” (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/30/us/natice-american-boarding- schools.html) (https://www.pcusa.org/news/2022/2/23/restorative -history/)

“American Christians went ‘into all the world,’ intending to bring the Good News, but the news was not always good for those on the receiving end. Denominations – including ours – are only now coming to terms with what they did in the name of God. Repairing the harm begins with facing the truth and listening.”

“Missionaries brought with them, wherever they went, their predilections and prejudices. The impact of the coming of Christianity was traumatizing in some contexts. Dutch Reformed leaders, Presbyterians from the Netherlands, provided a theological rationale for racist apartheid policies in South Africa, much as Christian preachers had done in this country in support of the enslavement of Africans. Missionaries cut people off from their own language and culture and indigenous religious practices.”

“Jesus did not command us to take children from families and send them to boarding schools and strip them of their culture, their identity. Nowhere does Jesus tell us to reject long-established traditional ways of life that had been sustaining and identity-giving in communities for multiple generations – to wipe all that out, and insist that one culture or ethnicity or race would dominate others.”

“In the 19th century, in an act of ecclesiastical hubris, major American Protestant denominations divided up the globe as if it were theirs alone, in order to be efficient and not duplicate efforts. European Christians were doing the same, and our collective efforts were successful. There are 75 million Presbyterians in the world today; only 1.1 million are in our denomination. On any given Sunday in South Africa and South Korea and in Cameroon, there are more Presbyterians in worship than in the U.S.”

“What about Westminster? We were established in 1857, right at the time when the great missionary movements were gaining steam, and we joined in with enthusiasm in trying to fulfill the Great Commission. We “went into all the world.” In the 1870s our congregation began supporting missionaries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and continued doing so into the middle years of the 20th century. The work centered around education, healthcare, and evangelism. We had a story to tell, faith to spread, information to teach, and help to offer. We don’t know much about the specifics of the efforts of the people we supported, but we can imagine they had both positive and negative effects.”

“The helpful impact of efforts to fulfill the Great Commission is evident in the lands where Westminster engages in global partnerships today. In English-speaking Cameroon, for instance, the country’s towns and villages are covered by a network of Presbyterian schools, clinics, hospitals, and training centers. In Cuba the best high schools in that island nation before the 1959 revolution were run by Presbyterians and Presbyterians have played a key ecumenical role there since the triumph of the revolution. And in the Holy Land, in ancient Palestine, Presbyterians started churches in those places – Syria and Iraq – where we were giving the assignment in agreement with other denominations. We had historic relationships with other denominations in the region, which includes the Lutherans, which led us to partner with Christmas Lutheran Church in Bethlehem.”

“Our current global partnerships began in early 21st century with a visit to Cuba. That visit marked the shift of our congregation’s understanding of the Great Commission, a movement that had begun in Protestant churches across the north in the latter half of the 20th century. We began to change from the old ways of doing ‘mission.’”

“In Cuba we met a pastor named Carlos Piedra. He had attended La Progresiva, the top Presbyterian school on the island before it was nationalized by the revolution. From there he went on the seminary. Piedra was raised as part of the extended family of our two Cuban guests here today, Reinerio and Dora Arce.”

“When we met him, Piedra was serving as pastor of a Presbyterian congregation called El Redentor, The Redeemer, in the city of Matanzas. We spent several days with him, and he opened our eyes to a different understanding of the Great Commission, new ways of encountering and engaging the world. Piedra helped us see that so often in ‘going forth into all the world’ the North American church defines ‘mission’ by what we think is needed, without pausing to listen to people in other contexts – as if Jesus Christ did not exist in other lands and other cultures until we brought him there. This re-thinking has happened not only in global mission but locally, as well, including right here in our city, in our own outreach beyond the church.”

“I remember how Piedra said to us, ‘We don’t need your solutions to what you see as our problems. We don’t need your answers to what you see as our questions. We don’t want what you think of as your abundance to resolve what you see as our scarcity. But if you want to come pray with us, worship with us, study the Bible with us, eat and drink and dance with us, please come. What we want with you is amistad cristiana, Christian friendship, and solidaridad, solidarity.’”

“He was dismantling – deconstructing – the old way we had been doing ‘mission,’ and guiding us into a new way. That visit set the trajectory for Westminster’s relationships with the three global partnerships that developed and are still active, in Cuba, Cameroon, and Palestine – and also for how we would try to live out our ministry right here in Minneapolis, in the local context. We don’t parachute in to do something that we think needs to be solved and that will make us feel good about ourselves, and then move on to solve problems elsewhere.”

“Instead, we have created covenants with the local partners in each nation, five-year commitments to a defined mutual relationship, primarily about respecting and listening to each other. We agree to share our lives with one another – either in person or, now, through the Internet – as an expression of the love and grace of God.”

“From our Cameroonian partners we have learned the joy of praising God in music and dance. On our first visit to Kumba Town Presbyterian Church there were 11 adult choirs, and they all sang in worship – dancing and praising God. We saw their emphasis on educating children as we visited the elementary school the congregation supports. We visited agencies where they teach young people to develop job skills. We saw clinics and hospitals and their work to diminish the scourge of HIV/AIDS. The Presbyterian Church is strong and growing across the country.”

“From our Palestinian partners we have learned the importance of creative resistance to injustice. When Christmas Lutheran Church in Bethlehem was shot up and occupied by the Israeli military to use as a base for assaults in other parts of the city, they gathered up the colorful shards of glass and created beautiful things. They discovered the power of art as a way to persevere through trauma, a different way of responding to violence that can lead to healing. Today the university they started, Dar AlKalima, focuses on the arts, and thrives in that context as a beacon of a different way through conflict.”

“From our Cuban partners we have learned a theology of resilience. Congregations there have held on and continued to worship God and serve God through many difficult decades. The seminary has persisted in spite of enormous obstacles, and is now planning to expand to Havana, with the help of Westminster’s Enduring Hope capital campaign mission component. The people in our small partner congregation have virtually nothing, so they depend on and support one another. We are part of their WhatsApp group and watch as they seek and offer help, especially around medicine, asking who has a couple pills of this or that, or if anyone has a particular treatment a neighbor needs. It’s like a first-century Christian community, freely sharing the little they have.”

“Each of the churches with which we have developed partnerships finds itself in a nation living with conflict of one sort or another. And each shows bountiful signs of deep, unwavering desire for peace and justice. In Cuba, the longstanding U.S. policy of economic blockade causes significant suffering. In Cameroon the English-speaking minority finds itself in conflict with the French-speaking majority, backed by the U.S. In Palestine, the Israeli occupation supported by the U.S. continues to harm Palestinians.”

“We hear about these struggles and recognize the importance of trying to influence our government’s positions, as we can. The covenants with our partner churches include a commitment to advocate for change in our government’s foreign policy toward their nations, for the benefit of both nations.”

“ When we visit our partners, and then return again and again, and when they come visit us as they are today, we are building bridges of hope for change for a more just world.”

“Go forth into the world in peace. Go forth not to dominate, not because you think you know what others need, not because you see yourself at the center.”

“Go forth into the world in peace. That line casts the Great Commission in a different light, making it less triumphant, a bit more gentle and modest, respectful, willing to listen and learn.”

“And isn’t that how the church should live here and everywhere! That is what Jesus was after in the Great Commission.”

“We are the church. We are the church. We have a message to share as Christians – and we are called to do that in ways that reflect the love and justice of God.”

“Go forth into the world in peace – knowing that Christ is already there, at work in the communities and in the lives of individuals we will meet.”

“Thanks be to God.”

“Amen.”

Music

 

Beautiful music during the service was provided by Charanga Tropical (a Cuban jazz group led by Doug Little, a Westminster member); CamChoir (a Cameroonian choir), which led the congregation in singing a Cameroonian hymn (“Bend Low”), whose refrain is “Bend low . . . and see what the Lord can do”; and by Community Sing (a Westminster choir) led by Dr. Amanda Weber (Westminster’s Director of Worship and the Arts). This choir sang “ Ghanu Lil Hayat (A Hymn for Life) in Arabic and “Santo, santo, santo” in Spanish (the latter’s English translation: “Holy . . . holy is our God. God, the Lord of earth and heaven. Holy, holy is our God. God, the lord of all history. Holy, holy is our God. Who accompanies our people, who lives within our struggles, of all the earth and heaven the one and only Lord. Blessed are they who in the Lord’s name announce the holy gospel, Proclaiming the good news that our liberation comes.”)

Post-Service Reception

 After the service, a reception was held in Westminster Hall to celebrate our global partners with comments, videos, coffee and snacks.

Conclusion

 What a wonderful, enriching worship service!

=======================

[1] Westminster Bulletin, World Communion Sunday (Oct. 1, 2023),

[2] Rev. Tim Hart-Andersen, Sermon: We Are the Church: Go forth into the world in peace, (Oct. 1, 2023).

The Importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

As has been noted in a post about the recent launching of the new U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made the following favorable comments about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): “The Commission will focus on “human rights grounded in our nation’s founding principles and the principles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An American commitment to uphold human rights played a major role in transforming the moral landscape of the international relations after World War II, something all Americans can rightly be proud of. Under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt, the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights ended forever the notion that nations could abuse their citizens without attracting notice or repercussions.” [1] (Emphasis added.)

In addition, the Commission’s chair, Mary Ann Glendon, has written a marvelous book about the UDHR: A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2001). [2] In her Preface, she says this Declaration “became a pillar of a new international system under which a nation’s treatment of its own citizens was no longer immune from outside scrutiny. . . . Today, the Declaration is the single most important reference point for cross-national discussions of how to order our future together on our increasingly conflict-ridden and interdependent planet.”  (Emphasis added.) Her book’s Epilogue emphatically states:

  • “The Universal Declaration created a bold new course for human rights by presenting a vision of freedom as linked to social security, balanced by responsibilities, grounded in respect for equal human dignity, and grounded by the rule of law.”
  • “The Declaration’s principles, moreover, have increasingly acquired legal force, mainly through their incorporation into national legal systems.”
  • “One of the most basic assumptions of the founders of the UN and the framers of the Declaration was that the root causes of atrocities and armed conflict are frequently to be found in poverty and discrimination.” (Emphases added.)

Therefore, the following brief summary of the UDHR should assist in understanding the upcoming work of the Commission.

The History of the UDHR

The Charter of the United Nations entered into force on October 24, 1945. Its Preamble stated, in part, that the U.N. was created “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women” and “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” And one of its stated purposes was “To achieve international cooperation . . . in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” (Art. 1(3)) The Charter also established the Economic and Social Council (Ch. X), which was to “make recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.” (Art. 62(2))

In June 1946, that  Economic and Social Council established the Commission on Human Rights, comprising 18 members from various nationalities and political backgrounds. The Commission then established a special Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, to write the Declaration. The Committee met in two sessions over the course of two years to consider that proposed instrument with Canadian John Peters Humphrey, Director of the Division of Human Rights within the U.N. United Nations Secretariat, as the principal drafter of the UDHR along with a committee that included René Cassin of France, Charles Malik of Lebanon, and P. C. Chang of the Republic of China. Once the Committee finished its drafting in May 1948, the draft was further discussed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the U.N. Economic and Social Council, and the Third Committee of the General Assembly. During these discussions many amendments and propositions were made by UN Member States.

On December 10, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly at a meeting in Paris, France adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by a vote of 48-0. Eight other countries abstained: the Soviet Union, five members of the Soviet bloc (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine and Yugoslavia), South Africa and Saudi Arabia. The other two U.N. members at the time were absent and not voting (Honduras and Yemen).[3]

Selected Provisions of the UDHR

Many of this Declaration’s words in its Preamble and 30 Articles are reminiscent of the language of the U.S. Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. Here are some of those words in the U.N. document:

  • “[R]ecognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” (Preamble)
  • “[H]uman rights should be protected by the rule of law.” (Preamble)
  • The “peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women.” (Preamble)
  • N. “Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” (Preamble)
  • “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” (Art. 1)
  • “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other s” (Art. 2)
  • “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” (Art.3)
  • “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.” (Art. 7)
  • “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” (Art. 18) (Emphases added.)

Legal Status of the UDHR

As a resolution of the U.N. General Assembly, the UDHR is not legally binding on U.N. members. As Mr. Justice Souter stated in an opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court, “the [Universal] Declaration does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law.”[4] Instead, like the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the UDHR was an inspiration and prelude to the subsequent preparation and adoption of various multilateral human rights treaties as well as national constitutions and laws.

Conclusion

 On December 10, 1978, the 30th anniversary of the UDHR’s adoption, President Jimmy Carter said this Declaration “and the human rights conventions [treaties] that derive from it . . . are a beacon, a guide to a future of personal security, political freedom, and social justice. . . . The Universal Declaration means that no nation can draw the cloak of sovereignty over torture, disappearances, officially sanctioned bigotry, or the destruction of freedom within its own borders. . . . Our pursuit of human rights is part of a broad effort to use our great power and our tremendous influence in the service of creating a better world, a world in which human beings can live in peace, in freedom, and with their basic needs adequately met.”[5]

=====================================================

[1] Here are other posts about the Commission:  Is Trump Administration Attempting To Redefine International Human Rights? (June 15, 2019); Other Reactions to State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights (June 17, 2019); More Thoughts on Commission on Unalienable Rights (June 18, 2019); U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights: Developments (July 4, 2019); More Comments About the Commission on Unalienable Rights (July 9, 2019).

[2] The Glendon book discusses the history of the drafting of the Declaration and includes copies of the various drafts.

[3] U.N., Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948), UN Gen. Assembly Res. 217A, Doc A/810 at 71;Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Wikipedia; Kentonspecial, Human Rights Declaration Adopted by U.N. General Assembly; U.N. VOTES ACCORD ON HUMAN RIGHTS, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 1948).

[4] Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,  542 U.S. 692 (2004); Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, Wikipedia.

[5] Excerpts From Carter’s Speech on Anniversary of Human Rights Declaration, N.Y. Times (Dec. 10, 1978).

 

U.S. Process for Screening Refugees

The U.S. process for screening refugees only commences after representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees screens and determines that an individual meets the international standard for refugees: an individual who has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” [1]

Once an individual is determined to be a “refugee” by that U.N. agency and is designated for resettlement in the U.S., the U.S. commences its process for screening such an individual before he or she is permitted to come to the U.S. On November 19, 2015, Mr. Simon Henshaw, the U.S. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, gave a special briefing on that U.S. process. [2] Here is what he had to say.

The U.S. “remains deeply committed to safeguarding the American people from terrorists, just as we are committed to providing refuge to the world’s most vulnerable people. We do not believe these goals are mutually exclusive or that either has to be pursued at the expense of the other.”

“All refugees go through the most intensive security screening of any travelers to the [U.S.]. It includes multiple federal intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI Terrorist Screening Center, and the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Defense. A refugee applicant cannot be approved for travel until all required security checks have been completed and cleared.”

“Syrian refugees go through yet additional forms of security screening. . . . We prioritize admitting the most vulnerable Syrians, including female-headed households, children, survivors of torture, and individuals with severe medical conditions. We have, for years, safely admitted refugees from all over the world, including Syrian refugees, and we have a great deal of experience screening and admitting large numbers of refugees from chaotic environments, including where intelligence holdings are limited.” In addition, the Government continues “to examine options for further enhancements for screening Syrian refugees, the details of which are classified.”

The “Department of Homeland Security has full discretion to deny admission before a refugee comes to the U.S. When in doubt, DHS denies applications on national security grounds and the individual never travels to the [U.S.]. Their decisions are guided by the key principle directed by the President and affirmed throughout the U.S. Government that the safety and security of the American people must come first. The U.S. Government has the sole authority to screen and decide which refugees are admitted to the [U.S.]. Security checks are a shared responsibility between the State Department and DHS.”

“All available biographical and biometric information is vetted against a broad array of law enforcement, intelligence community, and other relevant databases to help confirm a refugee’s identity, check for any criminal or other derogatory information, and identify information that could inform lines of questioning during the interview. DHS conducts extensive in-person interviews of all refugee applicants. Biographic checks against the State Department’s Consular Lookout and Support System, known as CLASS, which includes watch list information, are initiated at the time of a prescreening carried out by State Department contractors.”

“In addition, the State Department requests security advisory opinions from the law enforcement and intelligence communities for those cases meeting certain criteria. Biometric checks are coordinated by USCIS [U.S. Customs and Immigration Service] using mobile fingerprint equipment and photographs at the time of the interview.[3] These fingerprints are screened against the vast biometric holdings of the FBI, the integrated automated fingerprint identification system, and screened and enrolled in DHS’s Automated Biometric Identification System, which is known as IDENT.”

“Through IDENT, applicant fingerprints are screened not only against watch list information, but also for previous immigration encounters in the [U.S.] and overseas, including cases in which the applicant previously applied for a visa at a U.S. embassy. The classified details of the refugee . . . security screen process are regularly shared with relevant congressional committees.”

“The U.S. welcomed 1,682 vulnerable Syrian refugees in Fiscal Year 2015, and the President has directed his team to make preparations to admit at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in Fiscal Year 2016. Measured against more than four million Syrian refugees currently hosted in the Middle East, this is a modest but an important contribution to the global effort to address the Syrian refugee crisis.”

In addition, it has been widely reported that the U.S. screening of an individual Syrian refugee typically takes at least two years.

Conclusion

This account of the screening process should provide assurances to the American public that no additional procedures are necessary and that the recent bill to do that as passed by the House of Representatives is unnecessary.

=================================================

[1] Refugee and Asylum Law: Modern Era (July 9, 2011); Refugee and Asylum Law: Office of U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (July 10, 2011).

[2] State Dep’t, Special Briefing: Refugee Screening Process (Nov. 19, 2015).

[3] The mobile units for screening Syrian refugees currently are located in Turkey and Jordan with another unit planned for Lebanon.

Global Forced-Displacement Tops 50 Million

On June 20th, the United Nations refugee agency (U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees or UNHCR) reported that the number of refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced (IDPs) people was 51.2 million in 2013. This is the first time after World War II that the number has topped 50 million. (Articles about this report may be found in the New York Times and the Guardian.)[1]

This represented an increase of 6 million over the prior year due largely to the war in Syria and conflicts in the Central African Republic and South Sudan. Here is a graph showing the totals (with components), 1993-2013:

 

Refugee graph

Here is another graph showing the largest sources of refugees in 2013:

Source of refugees

Developing countries host 86% of the world’s refugees. The top five host countries are Pakistan, 1.6 million; Iran, 0.9 million; Lebanon, 0.9 million; Jordan, 0.6 million; and Turkey, o.6 million. The U.S. ranks 10th as a host country with 0.3 million.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, said,”We are seeing here the immense costs of not ending wars, of failing to resolve or prevent conflict. Peace is today dangerously in deficit. Humanitarians can help as a palliative, but political solutions are vitally needed. Without this, the alarming levels of conflict and the mass suffering that is reflected in these figures will continue.” He added, “The international community has to overcome its differences and find solutions to the conflicts of today in South Sudan, Syria, Central African Republic and elsewhere. Non-traditional donors need to step up alongside traditional donors.”

Serge Schmemann of the New York Times editorial board observed that the report indicates that half “the refugees are children; a growing number of these are on their own . . . . More than half of the 6.3 million refugees under the refugee agency’s care have been in exile for five years or more, testifying to conflicts that rage on and on.” Schmemann added that the “stunning figures offer a bitter counterpoint to the growing resistance in Europe and the United States to letting in immigrants and asylum seekers, and to the endless sterile blame-games about responsibility for the various conflicts.”

=====================================================

[1] A brief history of the UNHCR was provided in a prior post while another post discussed its report for 2010. Another post reviewed the international law of refugees and asylum seekers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Report on International Terrorism for 2012

 TerrorismReport_Cover_120_1On May 30, 2013, the U.S. State Department submitted Country Reports on Terrorism 2012 to the U.S. Congress as required by law. [1] This report provides an assessment of trends and events in international terrorism that occurred during 2012. The Department’s Fact Sheet about the report highlighted the following as the most noteworthy developments of the year:

  • Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism, through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and Tehran’s ally Hizballah had a marked resurgence.
  • The al-Qa’ida (AQ) core in Pakistan continued to weaken.
  • Tumultuous events in the Middle East and North Africa have complicated the counterterrorism picture.  Leadership losses have driven AQ affiliates to become more independent.
  • AQ affiliates are increasingly setting their own goals and specifying their own targets.
  • There is a more decentralized and geographically dispersed terrorist threat.
  • Although terrorist attacks occurred in 85 different countries in 2012, they were heavily concentrated geographically. As in recent years, over half of all attacks (55%), fatalities (62%), and injuries (65%) occurred in just three countries: Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

This report was submitted in compliance with 22 U.S.C. § 2656f, which defines “terrorism” for this purpose as ” premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” while the term  “international terrorism” means “terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.”

The Department is statutorily required to identify countries that have “repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism” as “State Sponsors of Terrorism.” This year the following four countries were so designated: Iran, Sudan, Syria and Cuba. A subsequent post will examine this absurd designation of Cuba.

Another chapter of the report concerns “terrorist safe havens,” i.e., “ungoverned, under-governed, or ill-governed physical areas where terrorists are able to organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, transit, and operate in relative security because of inadequate governance capacity, political will, or both.”  The following were identified as such havens: Africa (Somalia, Trans-Sahara and Mali), Southeast Asia (Sulu/Sulawesi Seas Littoral and Southern Philippines), Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and Yemen), South Asia (Afghanistan and Pakistan) and Western Hemisphere (Colombia and Venezuela).

The Secretary of State also is required to designate “Foreign Terrorist Organizations,” i.e., foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity or terrorism or retain the capability and intent to do so and that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the U.S. national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests). This year the report designates 51 such organizations.

In 2012, according to the report, a total of 6,771 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 11,000 deaths and more than 21,600 injuries. In addition, more than 1,280 people were kidnapped or taken hostage. The 10 countries with the most such attacks were Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Nigeria, Thailand, Yemen, Sudan, Philippines and Syria.

————————

[1] A prior post reviewed the State Department’s terrorism report for 2011.

International Criminal Justice: Other International Criminal Tribunals

We already have seen that the imposition of criminal sanctions (imprisonment) is one way that we the People of the world seek to enforce international human rights norms.[1]

We also have explored some of the institutions that do this. The International Criminal Court is a permanent body that was created by a separate treaty (the Rome Statute for the ICC) and that encourages and gives precedence to national criminal prosecutions under the principle of complementarity.[2] The U.N. Security Council has created two ad hoc and limited-life courts: the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).[3]

There also are at least four other special institutions that are authorized to impose such criminal sanctions. They are sometimes called “hybrid tribunals” because they have judges from the concerned country plus international judges.

1. East Timor Serious Crimes Panel

In 1998 the residents of East Timor voted for independence from Indonesia. In response pro-Indonesian militias launched a brutal campaign of property destruction and human rights abuses. Soon thereafter a U.N. military force entered the territory and restored order, and the U.N. set up the U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor.[4]

 

East Timor Serious Crimes Panel

In 2000 this Administration established a court system that included a Serious Crime Panel, which had jurisdiction over war crimes; crimes against humanity; murder; sexual offenses; and torture. The initial Panel had two international judges and one East Timorese judge. It was located in East Timor. [5]

By the end of May 2005 the Special Panel had completed more than 55 trials. Most involved relatively low-level defendants; 84 were convicted and 3 acquitted. The work of the Special Panel was cut short by a U.N. decision to end its missions to Timor-Leste.[6]

 

 

 

2. The Special Court for Sierra Leone

 

 

The Special Court for Sierra Leone was established pursuant to an agreement, dated January 16, 2002, between the Government of that country and the United Nations and the annexed Statute for the Special Court. It has 10 judges; five appointed by the U.N. and five by the Government of Sierra Leone.[7]

The Special Court has jurisdiction over “persons who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra Leone since 30 November 1996, including those leaders who, in committing such crimes, have threatened the establishment of and implementation of the peace process in Sierra Leone.” The Court’s Statute specifies the following crimes as within its jurisdiction: crimes against humanity; violations of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; certain other serious violations of international humanitarian law; and certain crimes under Sierra Leonean law.[8]

 

Sierra Leone Special Court

The Special Court, sitting in Freetown, Sierra Leone, has completed trials and appeals of (a) three former leaders of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC); (b) two members of the Civil Defense Forces (CDF); and (c) three former leaders of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). Two other individuals who were indicted by the Special Court have died, and their indictments, therefore, were dismissed. Another indictee is at large, and the status of one of the 13 indictees is unknown.[9]

The last of the Special Court’s cases is against former Liberian President Charles Taylor. He was indicted in March 2003 on 17 counts, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, sexual slavery and mutilation. In May 2004, before Taylor was in custody, the Special Court rejected his motion to dismiss the charges on the ground of head-of-state immunity; the court said that it was an international tribunal from which there was no immunity. [10]

In August 2003 Taylor resigned as President of Liberia and went into exile in Nigeria where he remained until March 2006 when Nigeria transferred him to Liberia. In Liberia U.N. military forces arrested him and took him to the Special Court in Freetown, Sierra Leone to stand trial. Soon thereafter because of security concerns the Special Court asked the Netherlands to accept his transfer to The Hague for trial by the Special Court; the Netherlands agreed to do so after the U.K. agreed to provide a prison for Taylor if he were convicted.[11]

The Taylor trial started in June 2007; the defense phase of the case ended in November 2010; and closing arguments were held in March 2011. The decision of the Special Court is pending.[12]

3. Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

 

ECCC logo

In 2001 the Cambodian National Assembly passed a law to create the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea (Extraordinary Chambers or ECCC). This is a court to try serious crimes committed during the Khmer Rouge regime 1975-1979. In June 2003 Cambodia and the U.N. reached an agreement detailing how the U.N. will assist and participate in the Extraordinary Chambers.[13]

The ECCC has 12 judges; seven are selected by Cambodia; the other five, by the U.N. The ECCC has jurisdiction over (a) “the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;” (b) “crimes against humanity as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;” (c) “grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions;”and (d) such other crimes as defined in Chapter II of the Cambodian Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers as promulgated on 10 August 2001.”[14]  The last category includes homicide, torture, religious persecution, destruction of cultural property during armed conflict and crimes against internationally protected persons.[15]

The ECCC has only four cases on its docket.[16]

The first case was against Kaing Guek Eav (alias Duch), the former Chairman of the Khmer Rouge Security Center in Phnom Penh. After eight months of trial, the Trial Chamber in July 2010 found him guilty of two charges. First was crimes against humanity (persecution on political grounds) (subsuming the crimes against human extermination [encompassing murder], enslavement, imprisonment, torture [including one instance of rape], and other inhumane acts). Second was grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, namely: – willful killing, – torture and inhumane treatment, – willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,                 – willfully depriving a prisoner of war or civilian of the rights of fair and regular trial, and -unlawful confinement of a civilian.[17]

The Trial Chamber sentenced Duch to 30 years of imprisonment (after reducing the initial sentence of 35 years). The judgment has been appealed to the Supreme Court of the ECCC.

The second case before the ECCC is against four defendants on charges of crimes against humanity; grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949; genocide; homicide; torture; and religious persecution. The trial commenced in late June 2011. Almost immediately one of the defendants left the courtroom and is participating by video.[18]

In September 2009, the Prosecutors requested the investigating judges to initiate an investigation of five additional suspected persons. This request was divided into what is known as Case files 003 and 004.

  • In April 2011 Case 003 the investigating judges rejected the request; an appeal has been filed from this denial.
  • Case 004, however, is still open. In August 2011 the investigating judges issued an unusual press release saying that they had not notified the public of the crime sites in this case because there were “serious doubts whether the suspects are ‘most responsible’ according to the jurisdictional requirement” and that If the Court had no jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate to identify these sites. However, since there was an increasing amount of speculative and wrong information being published, the investigating judges identified 30 sites in different regions of the country that were involved in this case.[19]

The Cambodian government has opposed the opening of cases 3 and 4, and the ECCC’s rejection of Case 3 and anticipated rejection of Case 4 have generated a lot of controversy.[20]

4.  Special Tribunal for Lebanon

 

In December 2005, the Government of the Republic of Lebanon requested the U.N. to establish a tribunal of an international character to try all those allegedly responsible for the February 2005 attack in Beirut resulting in the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and in the death or injury of other persons. Pursuant to Security Council resolution 1664 (2006), the U.N. and the Lebanese Republic negotiated an agreement on the establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Pursuant to that agreement, another Security Council resolution (No. 1757(2007)) and the Statute of the Special Tribunal, the Special Tribunal entered into force in June 2007.[21]

For considerations of justice and fairness, as well as security and administrative efficiency, the seat of the Special Tribunal is located at The Hague (Netherlands).[22]

The mandate of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is to prosecute persons responsible for the attack of 14 February 2005 attack resulting in the death of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and in the death or injury of other persons. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction could be extended beyond that attack if the Tribunal finds that other attacks in Lebanon between October 2004 and December 12, 2005, are connected in accordance with the principles of criminal justice and are of a nature and gravity similar to the attack of 14 February 2005.[23]

The Special Tribunal has 9 judges all appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General; three are Lebanese; the other six are from other countries. They are divided into Pre-Trial, Trial and Appeals Chambers.[24]

On June 30, 2011, the Special Tribunal indicted four men, all members of Hezbollah, for the assassination of Hariri. Hezbollah has contended that the Tribunal is a sham and manipulated by the U.S. and Israel. Now the challenge is to serve the warrants and arrest the four defendants.[25]

On August 19, 2011, the Tribunal announced that it would investigate three other attacks that, it said, were related to the attack that killed Hariri. They were an unsuccessful assassination attempt on a former Lebanese telecom minister (Hamadeh) in 2004; the attack and wounding of a former deputy prime minister and defense minister (al-Murr) in 2005; and the killing of a former Communist Party chief and critic of Syria (Hawi) in 2005.[26]

Conclusion

These four special tribunals along with the ICTR and ICTY demonstrate that the U.N. has reacted creatively to situations where nation states need assistance in holding accountable perpetrators of the worst crimes of concern to the international community.

In three instances (East Timor, Sierra Leone and Cambodia) the special tribunals were placed in the country where the crimes occurred, and their proceedings were conducted in the languages of those countries. This helps to bring immediacy to the trials for the affected communities.

When security is a problem for such trials in the affected countries (Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and Lebanon), on the other hand, the tribunals have been placed in a respected international center for such institutions (The Hague). The same was true for a specific trial (Charles Taylor) by the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

[1] Post: International Criminal Justice: Introduction (April 26, 2011).

[2] Post: International Criminal Court: Introduction (April 28, 2011). Other posts relating to the ICC may be found by going to the “tag cloud” in the upper right portion of the blog and double clicking on “International Criminal Court.”

[3]  See Post: International Criminal Justice: Winding Down Two Ad Hoc Criminal Tribunals (June 18, 2011). Other posts relating to the ICTR and the ICTY may be found by going to the “tag cloud” in the upper right portion of the blog and double clicking on “International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda” and “International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.” See also David Weissbrodt, Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin, Joan Fitzpatrick & Frank Newman, International Human Rights: Law, Policy and Process at 519-22, 536-40(4th ed. 2009)(ICTR)[“Weissbrodt”]; id. at 513-19, 533-36, 540-42 (ICTY).

[4]  Weissbrodt at 548-50.

[5]  Id.

[6] [Timor-Leste] Judicial System Monitoring Programme, http://www.jsmp.minihub.org; War Crimes Studies Center, East Timor Special Panels for Serious Crimes Documents, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/ET-special-panels-docs.htm.

[7] Agreement between the U.N. and Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (Jan. 16, 2002), http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=CLk1rMQtCHg%3d&tabid=176. See also Weissbrodt at 543-47.

[8] Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=uClnd1MJeEw%3d&tabid=176.

[9] The Special Court for Sierra Leone, http://www.sc-sl.org/HOME/tabid/53/Default.aspx.

[10]  Id.; Weissbrodt at 545-46.

[11]  Id.

[12] See n.3 supra.

[13]  ECCC, Introduction to the ECCC, http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/about-eccc/introduction; Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia concerning the prosecution under cambodian law of crimes committed during the period of democratic kampuchea, http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/documents/legal/agreement-between-united-nations-and-royal-government-cambodia-concerning-prosecutio.  See also Weissbrodt at 476-81, 547-48. See generally Cambodia Tribunal Monitor, http://www.cambodiatribunal.org (news, information and commentaries on Extraordinary Chambers).

[14] Id.

[15] Cambodian Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers, http://www.eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/legal-documents/KR_Law_as_amended_27_Oct_2004_Eng.pdf.

[17]  Id.; Giry, Cambodia’s Perfect War Criminal, N.Y. Rev. Books (June 26, 2011); Assoc. Press, Cambodia: Khmer Rouge War Criminal Appeals Sentence, N.Y. Times (March 28, 2011).

[18]  Mydans, Ex-Khmer Rouge Leaders Go on Trial in Cambodia, N.Y. Times (June 26, 2011); Mydans, Khmer Rouge Leader Leaves Court, in Sign of Legal Wrangling to Come, N.Y. Times (June 27, 2011).

[19]  Id.; ECCC, Appeal by the International Co-Prosecutor Against the Rejection of Investigative Requests in Case File 003 (Aug. 19, 2011), http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/blog/2011/08/appeal-international-co-prosecutor-against-rejection-investigative-requests-case-file; ECCC, Press Release by the Co-Investigating Judges Regarding Civil Parties in Case 004 (Aug. 8, 2011), http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/blog/2011/08/press-release-co-investigating-judges-regarding-civil-parties-case-004.

[20]  Assoc. Press, Cambodia Rebuffs U.N. Chief on Khmer Rouge Trials, W.S.J. (Oct. 27, 2010); Miller, KRT judge talks court controversies, Phnom Penh Post (Aug. 18, 2011).

[21]  Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Mandate and Jurisdiction, http://www.stl-tsl.org/section/AbouttheSTL.

[22]  Id.

[23]  Id.

[24]  Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Chambers, http://www.stl-tsl.org/sid/26.

[25]  E.g., Bakri, Tribunal Names 4 in ’05 Killing of Lebanese Leader, N.Y. Times (June 30, 2011); Bakri, Indictment in Hariri Assassination Is Published, N.Y. Times (Aug. 17, 2011); Crane & Del Ponte, Justice for Hariri’s killers requires the world’s support, Wash. Post (Aug. 16, 2011).

[26] Reuters, U.N.’s Lebanon Court to Probe Three Hariri-Linked Attacks, N.Y. Times (Aug. 19, 2011).